romansh

I like Campbell's view or eternity and eternal

 

Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now which thinking and time cuts out. This is it. And if you don't get it here, you won't get it anywhere. And the experience of eternity right here and now is the function of life.

When we start thinking of gods in terms of eternal, it pays to realize there are other interpretations of the e word.

Rom,

 

We all as humans view things subjectively. Is there any other way for a sentient being to view them? I am saying what use is it to argue that ones viewpoint is justifiably dualistic or monistic? To reside in ones being and to know one's Self one loses all notions of either unity or duality.

 

Not familiar with Rex Weyler. Whether John 10:30 is in the Jesus sayings or not certainly doesn't matter to me but it seems in my experience to be a valid Christian saying.

 

Joseph

We all review things subjectively? Is the a subjective truth or an objective one?

I must admit I have a problem with this postmodernistic relativism where all is subjective. I can't help thinking this dichotomy between the objective and subjective (noumenon and phenomenon) is somehow a false dichotomy. And of course the postmodernistic relativism is a dualistic view of things. For example it does have anchor point of good and bad, it is just that we can't access them in that they dependent on our perspective.

Anyway to get back to the topic. A monistic point of view might lead us to an Einsteinian, Spinozan or perhaps a pantheistic type of god. Whereas a dualistic point of view might lead us to a panentheistic, deistic or theistic type of god. Of course a postmodernist view will suggest all these types are equally valid. So if it does not matter, why bother discussing this?

And to answer the semi-rhetorical question, a quote from Clarence Darrow:

Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never.

Does belief in God matter ...?

What sort of god are we thinking of? Pantheistic, panentheistic, deistic or theistic? I'm sure there are other flavours.

For me? In the great scheme of things: not one iota; but then I am an agnostic in the weakest sense of the definition. And for you?

Perhaps we are saying the same thing? I said when the objective outlook is surrendered, one loses the notion of dualism.

I added when that is done one loses all notions (Notions -A mental image or representation; an idea or conception) of both. Of course unity is apparent from the perspective of dualism but in my experience one does not hold onto either as a notion in that state.

 

To me, Jesus was putting into words a mental image which is necessary in language to communicate however the experience itself only contains "I". (neither the notion of unity or dualism). It seems to me it is beyond description in words and i do not take exception to your words/interpretation looking at it subjectively..

 

Joseph

Perhaps - Are you saying viewing things subjectively leads to a monistic view point? If you are, I would say my experience leads to a dualistic view point.

Have you read anything by Rex Weyler? He wrote a nice book The Jesus Sayings about what words (he thinks) we can ascribe to the historical Jesus. I have a them here. Funnily John 10:30 is not amongst them. Does it matter?

Yes and no.

Rom,

 

Agreed.

 

When the objective outlook is surrendered, one loses the notion of dualism but it seems to me also one loses all notions whether of unity or dualism..

 

Joseph

Funnily enough, I see it the other way around. When we look at it subjectively ie me and the rest of the universe, then we fall into the 'trap' of dualism.

I think, John 10:30 nails it. Does it apply to me, you, everyone not just 'Jesus'? If this is true, then unity is very apparent when viewed "objectively".

 

In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe.

A form of dualism (in my opinion) but dualism nonetheless

Knowing that segregating one thing out from the universe is a fallacy.

Welcome to the growing Nova Scotia contingent

I do take issue with:

I live in...ahem....God's Country

Oh course this is the Kootenays in reality, but please don't tell anyone

your occasional resident agnostic

rom

Render unto Caesar

For me the spiritual moments are few and far between. Maybe half a dozen in my
life, that I can recall at the moment. They only last a few seconds but they are intense.

The last one:
was high in the Andes - seeing 120 My old dino footprints. realizing I too am a
footprint and will leave them, metaphorically speaking.

Another was
sitting in my back garden insisting to myself there has to be something more to
life than this.

Looking at our prezygote under a microsope and knowing this could be the begining of a human being.


Watching an image of something like napthalene crystallize between two
glass slides in one of old fashioned slide projectors. Two days later watching
the classroom of kids see the same magic

"...I am looking to discuss how people view the argument for gay acceptance because homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation and not a choice, in light that paedophile sexual orientation is possibly natural and not a choice."

 

I have a problem with the word "natural". It's too arbitrary.

Not only is the concept arbitrary it is also unnecessary. If Paul had said: homosexuality is a sexual orientation it would not make any difference to the argument. Paul goes on to say and not a choice. I would have qualified it a little and called it conscious choice. But that leads into the concept of free will and I don't think we have an appetite for this at this time.

Part of my argument for acceptance of homosexuality is that it is a natural sexual orientation. He argued that so is paedophile behaviour.

Personally I am uncomfortable with the natural/unnatural divide.

In my book mankind is part of the universe ... so is there anything unnatural in the universe? Perhaps a literal Biblical God?

If we are honest about this subject, it is whether we are comfortable with homosexuality paedophilia or not. While I am not, I can look back on myself and see some of the causes. (Primarily societal indoctrination).

I am suggesting a brute honesty - I don't like something therefore I will advocate against it. Rather than give it a label like "unnatural".

There are no unnatural atoms in this universe! And before some smart alec suggests that elements103 above are unnatural, they also have to say two ions smashing into one another producing fleeting new atoms is unnatural. Atoms smash into one another in the stars all the time.

To grossly oversimplify Boyer's case, we intuitively and automatically assume agency when something happens. This is evolutionarily beneficial.

This I think is pertinent to our existence. When my 85 kg body does something, I assume agency.

DrDon - science does not pursue "proof". Evidence and models - definitely

Agnostically tilting at windmills, so to speak.

Merry Christmas all.

rom

... God was in Jesus and if we God to be visible in us as well we should try to be like Jesus.

 

I also agree that duality is rather overdone. ...

Even the words we choose tend exacerbate duality - for example god in Jesus - Even Christ says he was one with with his father. Not that god was in him. We too should be one with god and therefore with everything else as well.

Will,

Which parts of the Bible does Dr Collins suggest that we take literally?

If you ask a theologian about the relationship between science and religion a common answer is that science is about discovering how the universe is evolving and religion is about understanding why the universe is evolving. What is the purpose and what is the meaning.

Why? is a strange question I find. When a teenager asks Why? are they not asking what are the consequences? When a younger child asks Why? that child is asking about the antecedents perhaps. Causes and effects - and we are stuck in between.

Science focuses on the causes and perhaps religion on the effects. Just waxing lyrical here.

As an aside, the word religion is not its root - to reconnect?

Romansh,

PC's are free agents to retain or discard any self-label.

That we might think PCs are free agents is OK in the trivial sense of the word free. Of course in the absolute sense of free as in free will, this claim is bit more of a stretch. I have seen a free will thread knocking about.

You ask why PC's would choose to hold the Christian label in light of the definition of others such as you mentioned and because they are open to other religious tradition teachings? One could just as well ask Why not? Or one could apply that same logic to any sect or denomination of any religion that departs from another s dogma, doctrine or definition for the sake of curiosity .

Well it seems reasonable to me, to ask what are the reasons (or causes) for a person to follow a progressive Christianity.

I think the 8 points in general provide some insight to the reasons. Many here consider themselves as followers of Jesus, known as the Christ, and found their approach to God through some of his reported teachings. Perhaps they feel they have as much a right to the label as any. To some it is not that important but irregardless i don't think that is the topic of this thread.

 

Joseph

Joseph - do you think reasons (or causes) for an atheistically minded person to follow or label themselves as Progressive Christisans is irrelevant to the question:

Is It Possible For An Atheist To Be A Christian?

Instead of one tree and two birds, Genesis focuses on the human relationship to two trees, the tree of Knowledge and the tree of Life. I'm thinking the imagry is perhaps interchangeable.

The main focus is on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (not knowledge as such). Adam and Eve were not forbidden the fruit from the tree of life (at least not until they gained knowledge of good and evil).

My last post here got me asking this question:

If the majority(?) Progressive Christians do not believe literally that Jesus was the son of God and was literally ressurected, and PCs are willing to explore actively alternative religious traditions, then why retain the Christian label? I understand this is the tradition we are familar with, but it seems curious as to why PCs would hold Christianity in someway?

It reminds me of the Buddhist metaphor of when we reach the yonder shore there is no need to carry the boat. While understand interpreting the Christian texts as metaphors can provide interesting insights into our existence, but so can a really good novel or a book on the nature of the cosmos.

Hi Romansh,

I like your point. As this topic has demonstrated it is difficult to get all Christians to agree on traditional axioms. The fact that an Atheist may have trouble with some of them is therefore not surprising or (IMO) excludes a person from considering themselves a Christian.

I understand Pete, even agnostics and atheists can't quite agree on definitions

For example the poster boy of early twentieth century atheism, Betrand Russell, said:

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds

either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed

from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

For pragmatic reasons I might define a Christian as someone who has the minimum literal beliefs that Jesus was literally the son of the Abrahamic god and that he died and was ressurrected for our sins.

If someone claimed that they were Christian and did not have these literal beliefs then that is OK too.

rom

Where does Campbell say this? Just curious.Campbell often talks about more than one interpretation of a myth, and that it is often the case that case that the authors of a myth intended more than one interpretation.

I'm pretty sure it is in PoM

for clarification I have read PoM several times

Pathways to Bliss not so carefully but a couple of times (may be time for a reread)>

And Myths to Live By

So any quote I have will almost certainly come from the first two books.

Sorry for the delay in replying

hmmn?

My wife? My son? My son's death, PoM - Joseph Campbell?

The realization it is all one?

one of the best 117 minutes I have spent

Campbell:

Unless there is death, there cannot be birth

PoM

Thank you for your interpretations:

The bird on the higher branch I feel is the soul. It sees unity for example, you can't have good without evil or evil without good.

For me the this bird is the silent mind - once we enter fruit eating bird's world do we shape our world whether it be unity or otherwise.

The bird on the higher branch the soul just witnesses and is in bliss enjoying the movie on the lower branch and yes the bird on the lower branch eats good and bad food and learns I hope from the indigestion and heartburn

I sort of agree but I would not use the word soul - as this, for me, implies a separateness from my body and everything else.

If the birds are "inseparable" then perhaps the notion of the "two birds" is human illusion? Other translations substitute "identical" for "inseparable". Is this really a denial of mind-body dualism?

My interpretation would be that it is a denial of dualism. The two birds a comrades, inseparable: they are one. I think Campbell described them as firm friends.

And yes the motif of the tree is important, GoE, Buddha - but I don't have an interpretation formyself as yet.

Again thanks for your points of view.

rom